All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The article has been improved after revisions and is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors addressed all questions and queries.
It is now improved. Authors improved experimental design
I asked for justification of results and authors rightly addressed those.
Paper is in accepted state from my side. I do not have any further comment
The article is written clearly.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The reviewers have provided some minor changes in the paper to proceed. Please incorporate all the given comments. Please provide the methodology and clarity of requested changes in methodology and please provide policy implications. Moreover, please improve the language of the paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
See my comments
See my comments
Findings are well presented but not justified. See my comments
Title: I have concern on word "discrimination". It usually use in negative sense. Is this the case in your apiculture?
Abstract: Is there any policy recommendation to relevant stakeholders based on your findings. If so, write a sentence on the Abstract and elaborate and in results and discussion.
Introduction: Introduction is written nicely. Accept my appreciation. However, why this study is necessary in Greece context is needed to address. In short, write the knowledge gap and how you will fill it.
Material and method: It is written nicely. Incorporate the following comment;
You used confusion matrix statistics such as the user's accuracy, kappa value and F-score, per classifier (line 230). Elaborate these statistical methodologies.
Results: Results are well presented. But, these can be improved further. For instance, your discussion is just listing of past literature. Justify your each result from these past literature (discussion). It will give you new insights based on your findings and hence policy implication if any. This can be incorporate here as well as in the Abstract
Abstract section missed the practical implications of the study.
Introduction needs to add the net contribution of this study in the current state of literature. For this purpose, please write a summary in the last paragraph of the introduction section.
The discussions of the results are fine and well-compared.
Methodology is well-written.
The validity of the findings should be added by some diagnostic test.
The conclusion section should be added with implication of the study, limitations of the present study and future direction.
The article is written clearly.
The authors say what they want to do.
The datasets are collected from the DJI drone.
The article shows the ratio of training and testing datasets, 70 % of the sample data was used for the training model and 30% for evaluation.
The 3138 images have been used in this study.
It was collected at different times and dates
and this should be fine.
I think the findings are plausible and make sense.
I think the article is fine. However, if I may, I would like to suggest this to the authors.
1. Regarding deep learning performance well perform,
the article should give the reasons.
Why doesn't this study apply state-of-the-art deep learning models
as a classifier such as CNN or Mark-CNN?
2. Please provide an image size of this research.
3. The authors used SVM as a classifier but they don't show an objective function.
I suggest showing the equation and giving a few details of the objective equation of SVM in this research.
4. There is very little information about each classifier. Please provide more details about each classifier.
5. The CA symbol in the F-score equation shown in lines 249-251
is not described.
6. In line 179, the flowchart of this research is shown in figure 2. However, figure 2 shows area 1.
please check figure 2.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.